Using NEC PSC4 Option C and E – It’s Not an Open Cheque

“Option C and E work only when both the Client and Consultant meet their responsibilities; clarity from one, competence from the other.”

The uncomfortable truth  

Let’s be honest: few clients, project managers, or suppliers ever sit down and really talk about what NEC PSC4 Option C or Option E means in practice. Everyone nods, a few mutter about target costs, pain/gain share, and collaboration, and then someone says, “Right, let’s get on with it.”  

But behind the tidy definitions sits a truth that often gets ignored, these contracts only work if both parties hold up their end of the bargain.  

- The Supplier must bid competently and honestly.  

- The Client must describe the work, its complexity, interfaces, and required competence clearly enough for the Consultant to price it properly.  

Leaving gaps or vague assumptions isn’t flexibility; it’s a recipe for misalignment and dispute.  

The illusion of flexibility  

NEC contracts are collaborative frameworks, not indulgent safety nets. Option E is not a licence to spend freely; nor is Option C a shield against poor pricing. Both demand professional understanding, transparency, and integrity.  

“Cooperation doesn’t mean indulgence, and flexibility doesn’t mean vagueness.”

When either party gets casual, by describing too little, assuming too much, or pricing too optimistically, the result isn’t collaboration; it’s confusion and, ultimately, conflict.  

Where clarity meets accountability  

A well‑written scope defines not just what must be done but also how complex it is, which disciplines it touches, and who owns which risks. Without this clarity, Consultants are forced to guess, and guesswork is the first step toward dispute.  

For example, if the brief simply says “Prepare environmental assessments” but omits data requirements, interface responsibilities, or legal dependencies, the Consultant can’t bid with confidence. The missing detail often later reappears as an “unexpected change.”  

When that happens, the temptation to label mis‑bidding as “a change in scope” becomes strong, but make no mistake, that’s not a change. It’s a failure of professional judgement, and if done knowingly, it becomes misrepresentation.  

Misrepresentation and FTPF risks  

Misrepresenting costs or disguising under‑bidding as change edges towards fraudulent or dishonest conduct, the kind regulators describe as Failing to Proceed Faithfully or Properly with Professional Functions (FTPF).  

Professional bodies like RICS and ICE place integrity at the heart of competence. A consultant caught retrofitting causes to mask incompetence is no longer making a poor commercial decision, they’re entering disciplinary territory.  

Termination and five‑year exclusion under PA23  

Public‑sector procurement rules, including PA23, are unambiguous about deliberate misrepresentation. Fraud or dishonest conduct can trigger:  

- Immediate contract termination, and  

- Mandatory exclusion from public contracts for five years.

That’s not a minor setback, it’s a professional blackout. One contract mishandled can end a firm’s public‑sector eligibility and erode private‑sector trust.  

And liability isn’t confined to companies. Directors, project leads, and cost managers personally involved in misconduct may also face investigation or regulatory sanction.  

Shared responsibility: clarity and competence  

So yes, Consultants must price competently, but Clients must scope competently too. Clarity in expectations, deliverables, and interfaces is the foundation of value for money.  

“No contract, even the NEC, can protect a project from unclear scope or wilful mis‑bidding. Collaboration succeeds only when both sides take responsibility.”

In Option C and E projects, the Client’s diligence in defining the brief is as critical as the Consultant’s diligence in pricing it. The harmony of those two responsibilities defines project success.  

Spotting early warning signs of incompetence  

Competence gaps are hard to spot during tendering because everyone looks confident on paper. Both sides can take simple steps to detect weaknesses early.  

Tips for Clients  

- Scrutinise assumptions. Long lists of “to be confirmed” items usually signal uncertainty.  

- Test technical understanding. Ask bidders which risks they see as largest and how they’ve priced them, vague replies are red flags.  

- Probe resourcing realism. Under‑resourced delivery plans usually hide over‑optimistic estimation.  

- Compare price logic, not just numbers. Seek evidence that rates and effort have been derived logically, not guessed.  

Tips for Consultants  

- Interrogate the scope. Ensure deliverables, interfaces, and approval routes are defined, if not, raise clarifications before bidding.  

- Assess Client readiness. Poorly defined governance or decision gateways indicate risk you can’t control.  

- Document your assumptions. Record scope limitations and dependencies to avoid post‑award disputes.  

- Secure alignment early. Make sure Task Orders, performance measures, and payment mechanisms align before mobilisation.  

Independent expertise: turning intent into competence  

Independent oversight can protect honest intent from procedural weakness. Dr Martin Perks of Black Pear Advisory Ltd supports Clients in three crucial areas:  

1. Developing better scopes – ensuring clarity, completeness, and realistic allocation of risk.  

2. Coaching Client Service Managers – improving contract administration under NEC PSC4 to manage delivery performance transparently.  

3. Enabling value‑for‑money demonstration – assembling objective evidence for assurance reviews and external audits.  

“Good governance isn’t bureaucracy, it’s the proof that value for money really exists.”

When audit or assurance teams scrutinise NEC PSC4 contracts, Clients who’ve engaged structured advisory and coaching support can show not only sound cost control but also visible integrity in their approach.  

The bottom line  

NEC PSC4 Option C and E are tools for disciplined collaboration, not casual flexibility. They work when the Client’s clarity meets the Consultant’s competence, nothing less.  

It’s not an open cheque; it’s a contract built on trust, professionalism, and shared accountability, and it rewards those whose honesty is as strong as their skill.